August 10, 2012

Romney has been outraising Obama for the last three months; in July, the GOP candidate and his party took in $101 million to Obama and the DNC's $75 million. Obama also has been spending his campaign cash faster than it's coming in, investing up front in staff, field offices, and the early ad blitz they hope will define Romney. That means the Republicans also now have more cash on hand to spend down the stretch, $170 million to the Democrats' $144 million as of the end of June. And then there's all the pro-Romney super PACs, which are expected to far outgun their Democratic counterparts, possibly spending as much as $1 billion. As Obama himself complained at a campaign stop in Colorado Thursday: "Over the next three months, you will see more negative ads, more money spent than you've ever seen in your life. I mean, these super PACs, these guys are writing $10 million checks and giving them to Mr. Romney's supporters."

Funny that he's complaining about the next 3 months. He's gone heavily negative in the past 3 months, spending a disproportionate amount of money early, betting that he can win by planting it in everyone's head that Romney's an evil rich guy. If that gamble were working, Obama would be doing better in the polls. Now, Romney has much more money. It's scarcely unfair! Obama and his people made a decision about how to campaign, and they should own it, not whine about it.

And I don't trust the polls. I'd like to see the internal polls, which are not about spinning public opinion. Presumably, these displays of desperation tell us something about what they're looking at in the secret, honest polls.

101 comments:

#4 is titled Voter Suppression? And then in the fine print the author brings up the number of states that have passed voter ID laws. What a crock of shit. That's the best marketing job since turning abortion into a 'right to choose'.

Democratic intimidation tactics mask a big "Bradley effect". The more the unions, Greens, Pinks, Lavenders, Reds, Browns, Blacks, make it racist for anybody to speak out against teh Won, the more there is a backlash that won't show up until folks get into the Voters booth.

Harry Reid was told by an unnamed poll that the election is over now and Obama has won.

Mitt needs to send Ann riding her horse. Maybe that can get Mitt some airtime that is not replays of over the top lies about Mitt made up by Obama. Those are lies that never required a payment to run on TV, but were run thousands of times anyway on free analysis pieces about the lie that has not been run.

As Obama himself complained at a campaign stop in Colorado Thursday: "Over the next three months, you will see more negative ads, more money spent than you've ever seen in your life.

Can the man whose administration has racked up trillions of dollars in debt and who has sprayed money at his cronies with a fire hose really call a few hundred million "more money spent than you've ever seen in your life"?

We've all seen more money spent than we've ever seen, and ever will see, in our lives: the last 3.5 years of your administration.

Once I heard Gore Vidal answer who he thought would win an upcoming election. I forget which one. He answered that he didn't think, he knew who would win. The surprised interviewer asked how he knew in advance and Vidal answered, "Money. Whoever has the most wins." And I thought that was cynical, and he turned out to be right in that instance. He kind of convinced me.

But now I'm seeing something different down ticket. Is that how you say that? Surprise upsets with less advantage like the Senate one in Texas just now, and it seems to me a surprising number of those. Vidal is not dead. I myself have a good streak of Vidal, the fiend might have contributed to that last transfusion, he didn't mention that something inside us is cheered when we see others flailing. It's a character flaw. This makes me happy.

Could do something about it, stop verifyi ... yeeeeah, bundle contributions to skir ... yeeeeah, send the wife ou ... yeeeeah, all that, there are things they could do.

Squirm. Please keep showing us the email appeals. Those are fun. Almost worth signing up just to see 'em but then they'd be all up in my digits.

Obama is ahead in the polls because pollsters are heavily oversampling Democrats in an effort to make it look like a close race. Romney is going to beat him pretty handily unless he does something to turn it around.

Running the kind of ads he's running is a big risk, and his campaign wouldn't be taking it if their internal polling didn't look so bad.

I encourage you to read the new book by Samuel Popkin called "The Candidate" It is about what it takes to get to WH. Chapter 4 is about Hillary and 2008. How Obama defeated her. And, you can guess, it is a blue-print on how Obama will defeat Romney. Enjoy.

Presumably, these displays of desperation tell us something about what they're looking at in the secret, honest polls.

Maybe. I think they're just executing on the strategy they decided on early, which was to slime Romney ASAP before he has a chance to get his national campaign in gear to respond. They may be experiencing some surprise that it's not working as well as they hoped (Obama campaign officials had been talking big about how they were going to destroy Romney, earlier in the year before Romney emerged as the winner of the primary process), but I don't think the fact that they're going this negative this early is a reflection of panic on their part.

Indeed, I'm pretty sure they knew they were going to have to do exactly what they're doing going in. The President has almost no accomplishments to his name. Obamacare is not a winning issue for him. The stimulus is not a winning issue for him. Killing Osama bin Laden is thrillingly popular (and I expect him to "spike the football" again and dance his heart out in the endzone on 9/11), but he can only talk about that so many times before it becomes comical, like Rudy Giuliani and 9/11. His path to reelection was always going to rely on sliming the Republican candidate, no matter who it was.

Obama's slightly ahead in most polls [but] he's actually in serious trouble . . . He's gone heavily negative in the past 3 months . . . If that gamble were working, Obama would be doing better in the polls

Obama IS doing better, much better, than he should be.

With this disaster of an economy, with the level of anger at government at an all-time high, Romney should be ahead by 30 points.

The fact that Romney is not, in fact, running away with it shows: (1) The attacks by Dems are working. (2) Romney is incredibly weak.

The fact is that people appreciate and respect strength in a leader. Consequently, even a thug and liar can have significant support. But people have little respect for weak, wishy-washy putzes whose responses to outrageous smears range from whining and crying about it, to a lukewarm "disappointment," to effectively validating them by not even disputing the smears.

Romney doesn't need all those Chick-Fil-A yokels. He's gonna win it the comfortable people way, steering well clear of all that nasty downscale social issues stuff. That-a-boy Romney, run away from your base...well, the base that wants to be your base and might be your base if you didn't let them know they embarrass you...schmuck.

I read on NRO a comment (cant find it right now) I agreed with, which analyzed Dick Lugars primary defeat and compared his campaign to the more succesful campaign of Orrin Hatch. The author wrote that the difference was, that Hatch fought back hard and early, took the challenge seriously from the beginning and thus framed the race.

Lugar on the other hand ignored Moudock for a very long time and so gave him the chance to shape the playing field.

It looks like the President is busy to determin the general direction of this campaign and I dont see Mr. Romney responding in kind.

The question is not really what motivates the Presidents campaign - they may be a little bite deperate - the question is: Does it work?

Although Obama may pull out a win in the end, the atmosphere around here tells me that he won't.

Four years ago, both my office an neighborhood was abuzz with Obama, and talk about the election (yes, even in August). Obama support was ubiquitous and vocal.

This year, I have not heard a single person talking about the election (except for fellow Republicans who are eager to vote). I have not directly or indirectly heard any positive comment about Obama (or negative statement about Romney) from the Democrats that I know.

That billion dollar fundraising target is going to haunt Obama. It was too ambitious, and he scaled up his operations too much.

Suppose your cost of funds increases linearly with every dollar you raise. Then your total costs will go as the square of your fundraising target. So it really matters if you hit that target.

For example: if you plan on raising a billion dollars, and figure that it will cost you 50 cents to raise that last dollar, your total expenses will be $250 million. If you set up that kind of infrastructure but only raise $500 million, you've spent half of your total without ever talking to a voter.

The figures are even worse if you planned on raising the absolute most money that you could -- spending your last dollar to raise one additional dollar. Now your expenses are half as large as your goal, and you have to raise $500 million before you can talk to voters at all.

This is all superficial analysis -- I don't know how much it costs for the campaigns to raise money, and a lot of these costs are variable, not fixed. But falling short of a big target can be much worse than raising the same amount with less overhead.

Be sure he has nothing but contempt for his OWS and black inferiors. While he feels it is his job to borrow money from China or take it from citizens to "spread the wealth to them" - he would count on security to keep them from the posh parties and nice golf courses he lives for.

As for Romney...I don't sense he is close to being as arrogant and contemptuous of the ill-educated, backwards yokels and rubes in his Base, as Obama is.

Zach said... That billion dollar fundraising target is going to haunt Obama. It was too ambitious, and he scaled up his operations too much.

I agree with the basic logic. I can't help chortling over the diffeence 4 years makes. Last time the Bama broke the public funding promise, played fast and loose with donataion verification etc, and smirked about outspending McCain 3-1. Now they are going to go into the last 90 days behind in funds and they are whining :)

PS: With Obama needy for cash, and controlling the DNC, expect the downballot impacts to be brutal. No DNC cash available for close last minute Congressional campaign support. I bet in order to get Obamacare votes, Obama made lots of 2012 promises to Senators that are going to be broken.

"And I don't trust the polls. I'd like to see the internal polls, which are not about spinning public opinion. Presumably, these displays of desperation tell us something about what they're looking at in the secret, honest polls."

On one hand, I'd like to believe the obvious: that this epic (and predictably so) failure of a president cannot possibly win re-election, that his failures are so obvious that all but the most committed leaches comprising the Democrat base will either not vote, or vote for Romney, and that data is showing up in the professional polls of the campaigns.

Yet, I never believed Americans would be so stupid as to vote for the least experienced man ever nominated for the presidency by a major political party, but they did.

Everything in my life, observed or experienced, tells me that stupid people making stupid decisions rarely, if ever, self-correct. They are too dumb to do so, and often require repeated, extreme intervention - basically, they have to be forced, against their wills, to fix their mistakes, or suffer serious consequences.

Frankly, I have no reason to believe, or expect, Obama voters to be smart enough to see their mistakes for what they are, to self-correct in the upcoming election.

To be sure, there is a glimmer of hope - a recent Gallup poll suggests as many as ten percent of Obama voters will flip their votes to Romney - if true, this is heartening (not just because of what it means for the election), as it suggests some people can make profoundly stupid mistakes, recognize them as such, and then fix it.

And make no mistake: voting for Obama was an easily avoided mistake - his unsuitability or lack of qualifications for office (and I don't mean the birther nonsense) was so obvious, so transparent, that any Obama voter with a sense of shame should be profoundly embarrassed by that vote.

Shanna, people have been saying that for months. A few months ago, I agreed; but it's mid-August. We only have 3 months left. That will fly by; and I can't believe that there are very many undecideds left who could go either way in the next 3 months.

My guess is that both campaigns have a lot of internal pooling that is a lot more accurate. For example, it doesn't over-sample Dems, assuming that turnout will be the same in 2012 as it was in 2008, but rather over-samples Reps, due to the enthusiasm factor. And, my further guess is that it is showing Romney ahead in the critical states, based on which campaign seems to be confident, and which one seems to be in panic mode.

Yes, the Obama people knew that they were going to go negative. But, it still seems like they are shooting their wad quite early. So, we see a constantly ratcheting up of the charges - was mean to his dog; didn't pay enough taxes; didn't pay income tax for 10 years; is a felon; is a murderer, etc. I suspect that mass-murderer is next. Then what? We still have almost 3 months left. While Obama himself, and not just his surrogates, starts spouting this stuff, Romney remains upbeat, and just asks Obama for the civility he ran on in 2008.

The problem for Obama is that his campaign and his surrogates are already over the top. The only way that anyone could have seen Romney's tax returns is by committing multiple felonies. And, the claim of murder (for the woman whose husband was laid off five years earlier by a Bain controlled steel company - after Romney had left Bain) was debunked within one news cycle.

Much of what Obama had going for him in 2008, and still has going for him, is that a majority think that he is a nice guy. Inept, inexperienced, etc., but nice. Nice guys don't campaign like this, and when nice guy goes, so does his campaign. And, once nice guy goes, in the American mind, I think so do his polling numbers, with a lot of those who wouldn't admit voting against him, now admitting that they will.

One of the reasons that I think that the internal polling numbers are veering towards Romney is that he is able to out-fund-raise Obama. Smart money that didn't jump onto McCain's campaign, is now going to Romney. Of course, they didn't know how bad Obama was going to be for the economy back then, but...

I have a 24-year-old son who graduated with honors, was a double major (Econ & Poli Sci). He's had a paycheck for a total of 4 months since graduating 2+ years ago. Also has had two unpaid internships in that time.

An Obama voter called High Hewitt yesterday. She had some story about she could have died because she didn't have insurance. It turned out she didn't get the expensive tests and nothing happened so her "could have died" was fantasy.

Then Hewitt, who does such good interviews, asked her the vital question. "Do you have insurance now?"

Her answer was classic Obama voter.

"Of course, I have Obamacare !"

She thinks that Obamacare is in effect ! She might as well have said he is paying her rent and car payment.

That's why he is still even in the polls. Mass stupidity. You can't make this stuff up !

Sorry Callahan, Gov. Dukakis, er, I mean, Gov. Romney has decided to run a "competence, not ideology" campaign.

Even in the primaries, Romney's campaign was devoid of any real substance, with the main reasons given to vote for him were he's the inevitable nominee and he can beat Obama. Both arguments being, of course, merely presumption upon presumption.

And now, that is largely what his campaign is about -- "I'm not Obama," together with an arrogant presumptuousness by his "wizards of smart" campaign team.

There is a reason that, despite six years of running for president, Romney could never top about 30 percent in the primaries. He is weak. He doesn't stand for anything beyond "elect me," and even then he is unwilling to fight, and he would rather lose and have Obama re-elected than repudiate RomneyCare and his innate moderate squishiness.

Your predictions about the Walker recall were so prevalent, it is common knowledge. There is no need for me to link anything for it to be true. I don't need a link to prove that the sun rises in a generally east-ish direction due to the rotation of the earth and changes of orientation throughout the year.

So, yeah:You predicted that the million signatures were significant enough that Walker was going to lose.

Thanks to Althouse's link recently to cheap or free kindle books, I came across this little gem in Thucydides' The History of the Peloponnesian War : "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Sound like the Obama campaign has been studying their ancient history? No, I doubt it too.

To provide evidence of my own vulgarity let me quote a re-quoted comment on Politico that I just loved and wish would go viral."I do not like Barack Obam, I do not like his health care scam. I do not like that sneaky crook, or how he lies and cooks the books. I do not like it when he steals, I do not like his secret deals. I do not like that metro man, I do not like his 'YES WE CAN.' I do not like his spending spree, does he not know that nothing's free? I do not like his smug replies, I do not like his constant lies. I do not like his kind of hope. I do not like it. Nope, nope, nope."

Bender - I hope you're wrong, but I suspect you're right. If Romney loses, he'll have no one but himself to blame.

Not to promote myself, but to repeat what I said here back in February --Romney has not grown on people in the last five years, and he won't grow on them in the next nine months, except in a bad way. Instead, people will start getting a sick feeling in their stomach contemplating the thought of having to force themselves to go "hold their nose" to vote for him without a fit of projectile vomiting. And all this combined with getting pissed off at being expected to defend Romney's indefensibles, such as RomneyCare. . . .2/1/12 2:50 PM

Don't expect things to get much better. "But at least he's not Obama!" Yeah, great campaign slogan.

Money itself is a very good poll in that it tends to show both what some people who have money to spend and think elctions are important want to happen and what they think will happen.

And it's their money, not just talk.

Yes. We assume that the campaign with the most money usually wins because they can outspend their opponent in campaign ads, etc. But what if the money is just a harbringer of the vote? The more popular the candidate, the more money he raises. He wins because he is the choice of more people, not because he raised more money.

It's more about these people putting their money, or the money they control anyway, where they think it will do the most good to ensure theirs, and the company's, survival.And they and their advisers have been through a few elections before.

Bender as Prophet, proudly reminding people of his February profoundity:

And all this combined with getting pissed off at being expected to defend Romney's indefensibles, such as RomneyCare. . . .

Voters of Mass to Romney and elected Dem officials: Health care in Mass is broken. Fix it. Work it out.Romney and Dems - OK, but it will be a compromise no side likes perfectly, but will be better than the broken mess we have now!

6 years later, assessing the product, 69% of people in Mass are happy with Romneycare.

--------------So it is quite defensible -

1. Unless you are a rural goober or yahoo convinced that the existing healthcare system is perfect...and hate things like trammelling the freedom of drug companies to charge as they wish or wanting an end to free riders out of some bizarre religious right litmus test.

2. Or Bender is somewhere within the current broken system, making good money off it.

But these days it isn't just corporations and rich people who give money to candidates. It is very easy for the average voter to donate to the pol of his choice. And if enough of them feel strongly enough to give their money to a political candidate, wouldn't that reflect the popularity of the candidate? Or, if popularity is the wrong word, the desirability of the candidate for the majority?

Maybe someone could do a study comparing campaign money raised with the subsequent vote and see if they correspond in any way. I suspect that campaign fundraising is significantly different in the internet age than it was in the 1990's.

What's the U6 unemployment rate for all of those young people who voted for Obama last time? 50% or so?

The one bright spot in the last four years has been the people who were the most enthusiastic Obama supporters are paying the heaviest price for his handling of the economy. They're going to pay even more when the bills come due for the stimulus and Obamacare, though they're not bright enough to realize it yet.

If I could ask the Obama crew one question it would be "Why so strident and desperate? Are you purposely trying to sink every struggling candidate in all the red states you need to keep your majority?" This is Hitler in the bunker strength scorched earth campaign. Granted obama has had rocky relations with the republican's but should obama survive does he really think anyone on the republican side will want to work with him?

1) Zero always campaigns dirty. Look at his history. He has never won a race without massive amounts of mud slinging at his opponents. The dirt being flung at Romney right now is not desperstion, it is par for Zero's coarse(or in honor of the greatest speachafying president ever, corpse)

2) The press being in the tank for Zero so much that they resemble guppies. Any lie, no matter how stupid, will be repeated for at least a week, every time a democrat spouts one. At the same time, theyill be covering Zero's ass everytime he lets his commie dictator mask slip. Like they did with "You didn't build that" How many newspaper articles and spots on TV was given over to the douches trying to tell us what Zero "really" meant, not what we heard.

And add in shill like Shiloh, Garage, and AP, and you have a massive media machine.

The polls are skewed, but until we get someone in the Senate with the guts to call Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, AND Zero, the fucking liars that lie that thtey are, they are going to continue to dominate the MSM.

What we personaly believe doesn't mean dick to the outcome.

Ps.

Those of you hoping a R congress will step up and stop this dictator, WHY WOULD THEY START THEN? They've sat on their asses for 3 1/2 years and just kept taking bites of the shit sandwich Zero made for them. Have you heard even one of them say anything about Zero gutting the welfare regulations? You do realize that the regulations make it against the law to gut them because as soon as D's got control they would. No! They haven't done a fucking thing, and they won't because they are PUSSYS!

"Those of you hoping a R congress will step up and stop this dictator, WHY WOULD THEY START THEN? They've sat on their asses for 3 1/2 years and just kept taking bites of the shit sandwich Zero made for them."

Ask Darrell Issa. Wait until the Senate flips. There are going to be some people in the gray bar hotel. Like the Cutter bitch.